Judicature For Rajasthan High Court · 2009

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. G.S. Bafna, for petitioner Mr. Alok Garg, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order of Tourism Corporation Ann.4 dt.4th November, 2008 whereby they took decision that refreshment room be managed by department of IRCTC. As a consequence whereof, contract of the petitioner has not been renewed after 31st December, 2008. Counsel for petitioner submits that he is a licensee and running refreshment room at Railway Station, Jaipur since July, 1962 and his licence was renewed from time to time and so called policy of the respondent is arbitrary and violative of Art.21 of the Constitution of India and respondents have failed to disclose any reasonable justification in managing refreshment room at Jaipur of its own, particularly, when for all other stations, tender notice has been issued CW 13010/08 [2] for refreshment room to be run by private contractors.

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and also filed application u/s.8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with O.7 R.11 CPC with the objection that in view of Clause 60, if at all the petitioner has any grievance under order impugned, can be assailed only in the appropriate proceedings and present petition is not maintainable. Counsel for petitioner has tried to justify that their action is per se arbitrary and no justification has come forward and even if alternative remedy of invoking provision under Arbitration Act is available, but that will not deprive the petitioner in claiming relief under equitable jurisdiction of this court U/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In opinion of this court, once there is a clause of arbitration in the agreement, of which reference has been made by the respondents in their reply, in view of Sec.8 of Arbitration Act remedy can be availed under the Act, 1996 and defence available under law can certainly be CW 13010/08 [3] raised in the appropriate proceedings, if initiated at the behest of petitioner.

Counsel further submits that since there was stay operating in the instant petition and by that time he availed remedy, prejudice may cause to him. Suffice it to say that in terms of Sec.9, he can request for interim relief. Consequently, this court finds no justification to interfere in the instant petition in view of alternative remedy under the provisions of the Act, 1996 available to the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail remedy available under law. FRBOHRA13010CW08 2-3.doc [AJAY RASTOGI], J.